In prone ventilation, one good turn deserves another

Translational medicine for acute lung injury

Acute lung injury (ALI) is a complex disease with numerous causes. This review begins with a discussion of disease development from direct or indirect pulmonary insults, as well as varied pathogenesis. The heterogeneous nature of ALI is then elaborated upon, including its epidemiology, clinical manifestations, potential biomarkers, and genetic contributions. Although no medication is currently approved for this devastating illness, supportive care and pharmacological intervention for ALI treatment are summarized, followed by an assessment of the pathophysiological gap between human ALI and animal models. Lastly, current research progress on advanced nanomedicines for ALI therapeutics in preclinical and clinical settings is reviewed, demonstrating new opportunities towards developing an effective treatment for ALI.

Pathophysiology and Management of Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome in Children

Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is a syndrome of noncardiogenic pulmonary edema and hypoxia that accompanies up to 30% of deaths in pediatric intensive care units. Pediatric ARDS (PARDS) is diagnosed by the presence of hypoxia, defined by oxygenation index or Pao₂/Fio₂ ratio cutoffs, and new chest infiltrate occurring within 7 days of a known insult. Hallmarks of ARDS include hypoxemia and decreased lung compliance, increased work of breathing, and impaired gas exchange. Mortality is often accompanied by multiple organ failure. Although many modalities to treat PARDS have been investigated, supportive therapies and lung protective ventilator support remain the mainstay.

Efficacy of prone position in acute respiratory distress syndrome patients: A pathophysiology-based review

Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is a syndrome with heterogeneous underlying pathological processes. It represents a common clinical problem in intensive care unit patients and it is characterized by high mortality. The mainstay of treatment for ARDS is lung protective ventilation with low tidal volumes and positive end-expiratory pressure sufficient for alveolar recruitment. Prone positioning is a supplementary strategy available in managing patients with ARDS. It was first described 40 years ago and it proves to be in alignment with two major ARDS pathophysiological lung models; the "sponge lung" - and the "shape matching" -model. Current evidence strongly supports that prone positioning has beneficial effects on gas exchange, respiratory mechanics, lung protection and hemodynamics as it redistributes transpulmonary pressure, stress and strain throughout the lung and unloads the right ventricle. The factors that individually influence the time course of alveolar recruitment and the improvement in oxygenation during prone positioning have not been well characterized. Although patients' response to prone positioning is quite variable and hard to predict, large randomized trials and recent meta-analyses show that prone position in conjunction with a lung-protective strategy, when performed early and in sufficient duration, may improve survival in patients with ARDS. This pathophysiology-based review and recent clinical evidence strongly support the use of prone positioning in the early management of severe ARDS systematically and not as a rescue maneuver or a last-ditch effort.

Recent advances in understanding and treating ARDS

Acute respiratory distress syndrome represents a complex syndrome with considerable morbidity and mortality, for which there exist no targeted treatment strategies. However, recent advances in clinical care have improved outcomes, and we will review a number of these approaches here, as well as explore the mechanisms underlying the benefit of intervention that might point us in the direction toward future treatment and preventive strategies for this devastating syndrome.

How to improve assessment of balance in baseline characteristics of clinical trial participants-example from PROSEVA trial data?

The randomization process is expected to balance assignment between the groups, independent to the participant and/or investigator, and as such avoids systematic error. However, it is recognized that groups assigned through the randomization process are not completely the same. Generally, a table with baseline characteristics is provided, where investigators report demographic and pertinent clinical variables based on the random group assignment and P values for the each variable in attempt to either support the balanced assignment or to indicate that the balance between groups was not ideal. The recently published PROSEVA trial showed more than 50% relative risk reduction of 28-day mortality among ARDS patients in the prone group compared to the supine group. In order to demonstrate a novel approach and exemplify how imbalance in baseline characteristics between groups could have potentially contributed to the large observed effect, we pooled pertinent baseline clinical variables from the trial in a meta-analysis-like manner. In addition to the quantification, we assigned the variable's "quality" of probable effect on the outcome as likely beneficial or harmful. After pooling pertinent dichotomous variables by the probability of their effect on the outcome, it appeared that approximately 37% (18% to 60%) of the observed PROSEVA trial effect could have been due to differences in baseline clinical characteristics. The main limitation of this approach is that all variables are assumed to have similar weights on the outcome. Interestingly, the weights of beneficial and harmful effects on the outcome were very similar. The proposed method of assessment of potential imbalance between the intervention groups assesses not only the magnitude of the difference, but rather the pooled probability of beneficial or harmful effect towards outcome, as well. As such, it could be useful as a secondary measure for the assessment of imbalance in the trials with the unexpectedly large observed effects.

Prone position for acute respiratory failure in adults

BACKGROUND

Acute hypoxaemia de novo or on a background of chronic hypoxaemia is a common reason for admission to intensive care and for provision of mechanical ventilation. Various refinements of mechanical ventilation or adjuncts are employed to improve patient outcomes. Mortality from acute respiratory distress syndrome, one of the main contributors to the need for mechanical ventilation for hypoxaemia, remains approximately 40%. Ventilation in the prone position may improve lung mechanics and gas exchange and could improve outcomes.

OBJECTIVES

The objectives of this review are (1) to ascertain whether prone ventilation offers a mortality advantage when compared with traditional supine or semi recumbent ventilation in patients with severe acute respiratory failure requiring conventional invasive artificial ventilation, and (2) to supplement previous systematic reviews on prone ventilation for hypoxaemic respiratory failure in an adult population.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2014, Issue 1), Ovid MEDLINE (1950 to 31 January 2014), EMBASE (1980 to 31 January 2014), the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) (1982 to 31 January 2014) and Latin American Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS) (1992 to 31 January 2014) in Ovid MEDLINE for eligible randomized controlled trials. We also searched for studies by handsearching reference lists of relevant articles, by contacting colleagues and by handsearching published proceedings of relevant journals. We applied no language constraints, and we reran the searches in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and LILACS in June 2015. We added five new studies of potential interest to the list of "Studies awaiting classification" and will incorporate them into formal review findings during the review update.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that examined the effects of prone position versus supine/semi recumbent position during conventional mechanical ventilation in adult participants with acute hypoxaemia.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently reviewed all trials identified by the search and assessed them for suitability, methods and quality. Two review authors extracted data, and three review authors reviewed the data extracted. We analysed data using Review Manager software and pooled included studies to determine the risk ratio (RR) for mortality and the risk ratio or mean difference (MD) for secondary outcomes; we also performed subgroup analyses and sensitivity analyses.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified nine relevant RCTs, which enrolled a total of 2165 participants (10 publications). All recruited participants suffered from disorders of lung function causing moderate to severe hypoxaemia and requiring mechanical ventilation, so they were fairly comparable, given the heterogeneity of specific disease diagnoses in intensive care. Risk of bias, although acceptable in the view of the review authors, was inevitable: Blinding of participants and carers to treatment allocation was not possible (face-up vs face-down).Primary analyses of short- and longer-term mortality pooled from six trials demonstrated an RR of 0.84 to 0.86 in favour of the prone position (PP), but findings were not statistically significant: In the short term, mortality for those ventilated prone was 33.4% (363/1086) and supine 38.3% (395/1031). This resulted in an RR of 0.84 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.69 to 1.02) marginally in favour of PP. For longer-term mortality, results showed 41.7% (462/1107) for prone and 47.1% (490/1041) for supine positions, with an RR of 0.86 (95% CI 0.72 to 1.03). The quality of the evidence for both outcomes was rated as low as a result of important potential bias and serious inconsistency.Subgroup analyses for mortality identified three groups consistently favouring PP: those recruited within 48 hours of meeting entry criteria (five trials; 1024 participants showed an RR of 0.75 (95% CI 0.59 to 94)); those treated in the PP for 16 or more hours per day (five trials; 1005 participants showed an RR of 0.77 (95% CI 0.61 to 0.99)); and participants with more severe hypoxaemia at trial entry (six trials; 1108 participants showed an RR of 0.77 (95% CI 0.65 to 0.92)). The quality of the evidence for these outcomes was rated as moderate as a result of potentially important bias.Prone positioning appeared to influence adverse effects: Pressure sores (three trials; 366 participants) with an RR of 1.37 (95% CI 1.05 to 1.79) and tracheal tube obstruction with an RR of 1.78 (95% CI 1.22 to 2.60) were increased with prone ventilation. Reporting of arrhythmias was reduced with PP, with an RR of 0.64 (95% CI 0.47 to 0.87).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found no convincing evidence of benefit nor harm from universal application of PP in adults with hypoxaemia mechanically ventilated in intensive care units (ICUs). Three subgroups (early implementation of PP, prolonged adoption of PP and severe hypoxaemia at study entry) suggested that prone positioning may confer a statistically significant mortality advantage. Additional adequately powered studies would be required to confirm or refute these possibilities of subgroup benefit but are unlikely, given results of the most recent study and recommendations derived from several published subgroup analyses. Meta-analysis of individual patient data could be useful for further data exploration in this regard. Complications such as tracheal obstruction are increased with use of prone ventilation. Long-term mortality data (12 months and beyond), as well as functional, neuro-psychological and quality of life data, are required if future studies are to better inform the role of PP in the management of hypoxaemic respiratory failure in the ICU.